American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

ACWGC Forums

* ACWGC    * Dpt. of Records (DoR)    *Club Recruiting Office     ACWGC Memorial

* CSA HQ    * VMI   * Join CSA    

* Union HQ   * UMA   * Join Union    

CSA Armies:   ANV   AoT

Union Armies:   AotP    AotT

Link Express

Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:49 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2022 6:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:24 pm
Posts: 1145
Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
Gentlemen,
can anyone tell me what the change exactly is that 4.01 gives us in regards to that OR?
Changelog only tells "Reduced the values for the Higher Fatigue Recovery optional rule.", reduced to what?

_________________
Lieutenant General Christian Hecht
Commander I Corps, Army of the Potomac
Image
"Where to stop? I don't know. At Hell, I expect."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2022 1:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:28 am
Posts: 71
Unfortunately it is not in the manual any more. I think the 3.0 manual stated it was 5x and 3x faster for low and medium fatigue units, respectively. Or vice versa.

Probably the fastest way to find out is to ask WDS.

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2022 9:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:14 pm
Posts: 75
A simple test. FYI.

Gettysburg 4.01

Day Recovery 10%

Higher Fatigue Recovery Rates On.

12 units begin with 100 fatigue.

One turn later, their fatigue become 88 (-12), 63 (-37), 77 (-23), 77 (-23), 62 (-38), 71 (-29), 61 (-39), 80 (-20), 79 (-21), 85 (-15), 99 (-1) and 99 (-1).

The mean of recovery is 21.58. So I guess the Higher Fatigue Recovery Rate in Low Fatigue (green) is ×2 now instead of ×5. I don't know why WDS don't write this clearly in ChangeLog.

Well, I think it will have a little influence on my strategy. You will have more difficulty benefiting from Higher Fatigue Recovery Rates now. Resting your men in time still brings a bit of advantage but needs a long scenario and more time. In other words, I think it is indifferent in a single-day scenario no matter Higher Fatigue Recovery Rates On or Off —— little need to rest because of hard to recover in time.

_________________
BG Ashdoll Ren
3rd Division
II Corps / Army of Northern Virginia


"Days and weeks of sheer boredom, interspersed with times of stark terror!"

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2022 9:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:28 am
Posts: 71
Ashdoll Ren wrote:

Day Recovery 10%

12 units begin with 100 fatigue.

One turn later, their fatigue become 88 (-12), 63 (-37), 77 (-23), 77 (-23), 62 (-38), 71 (-29), 61 (-39), 80 (-20), 79 (-21), 85 (-15), 99 (-1) and 99 (-1).

The mean of recovery is 21.58.


Ashdoll, are the unit fatigue numbers you listed the average of the unit fatigue and the fatigue recovery for the 12 units each turn? Or did they all lose fatigue at exactly the same rate? The latter would be an unfortunate implementation in my opinion.

Your result seems plausible given what is in the manual. I recall that medium fatigue units recovered fatigue at a different rate than low fatigue units when using this optional rule. I am too lazy to check the 3.00 manuals or to test this myself to find out what the current rate is.

The implementation of the optional rule seems odd to me. Currently, I am not sure how this optional rule is supposed to make the game play differently (ie what behavior does this rule incentivize or change?). According to the manual, low fatigue units recover fastest. This makes it harder to fatigue the unit in the first place until you hit it so hard it exceeds the next fatigue threshold (easy to do in melee though). This would have had an even greater impact given the fatigue changes made to 4.0 that were reversed in 4.01 (https://wargameds.com/blogs/news/cwb-update?page=1#comments). This seems to allow units to fight longer at low fatigue but is less or not beneficial for higher fatigue units. Raising the fatigue thresholds or the maximum fatigue level would be a more intuitive way to accomplish this, independently of whether that is doable in the game engine. Whereas if the reverse were true - that higher fatigue units recovered faster than lower fatigue units - it would get higher fatigue units back into the fight faster, it would make it progressively harder to push units over higher fatigue thresholds, and in turn would change how shorter scenarios can be played. I think that would be a more meaningful gameplay change.

Long story short: I don't see the point of this optional rule.

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2022 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:24 pm
Posts: 1145
Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
Well initially the rule assured that resting units made sense. With the standard recovery rate resting made no sense because once a unit had hit a certain level of fatigue, what could already have happened after a first bad melee, the unit would be out for the rest of the day or even longer in multi-day scenarios.
My experience back then was that players didn't stop to fight and ignored fatigue more or less. That was like watching a boxing match in round 12 were the opponents had already burned out in round 6 or doing east front offensive in rasputitsa, it was just awfully annoying, boring & strange and you could have well brocken off any scenario ahead of its time when you had reached that point.

Now, with higher fatigue recovery resting does matter because it enables you to get the low & medium fatigue units back to action in a foreseeable time so that they have real impact on the outcome of the scenario. Even the high fatigue units do that but likely only in multi-day scenarios. With that the gameplay of the players just changes because they regard resting again as a tool to be used and not ignored. It is just a very different gameplay and much more realistic then without this OR.

_________________
Lieutenant General Christian Hecht
Commander I Corps, Army of the Potomac
Image
"Where to stop? I don't know. At Hell, I expect."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2022 4:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:28 am
Posts: 71
C. Hecht wrote:
Well initially the rule assured that resting units made sense. With the standard recovery rate resting made no sense because once a unit had hit a certain level of fatigue, what could already have happened after a first bad melee, the unit would be out for the rest of the day or even longer in multi-day scenarios.
My experience back then was that players didn't stop to fight and ignored fatigue more or less. That was like watching a boxing match in round 12 were the opponents had already burned out in round 6 or doing east front offensive in rasputitsa, it was just awfully annoying, boring & strange and you could have well brocken off any scenario ahead of its time when you had reached that point.

Now, with higher fatigue recovery resting does matter because it enables you to get the low & medium fatigue units back to action in a foreseeable time so that they have real impact on the outcome of the scenario. Even the high fatigue units do that but likely only in multi-day scenarios. With that the gameplay of the players just changes because they regard resting again as a tool to be used and not ignored. It is just a very different gameplay and much more realistic then without this OR.

I defer to your experience on players ignoring fatigue. I feel that this is a player shortcoming rather than a game rules shortcoming though. Units with high fatigue do have their uses. Furthermore, according to the game design notes, what you note as drawbacks of the the fatigue system are intentional consequences meant to mimic real-life outcomes. Players can make a PBEM bid to end the scenario if their armies are exhausted.

From the game manual:
Quote:
Why does it take so long for units to recover from Fatigue? In the game, Fatigue is used to represent combat fatigue, not the physical state of being winded. As such, the physical effects of combat fatigue are felt long term and do not wear off through simple rest. In many Civil War battles, the end of the battle was determined by fatigue and not by losses. In larger battles, commanders had to be careful to rotate their fighting units and not commit any one force too long to battle. Having higher Fatigue recovery rates would permit the unrealistic ability for commanders to rest units for short periods of time and then recommit them to battle, something that was not common historically.


I went back and looked at the 3.0 implementation of the optional rule. The manual states:
Quote:
Under this rule, units with Low Fatigue will have a fatigue recovery rate which is 5 times normal. Units with Medium Fatigue will have a fatigue recovery rate which is 3 times normal. Units with High Fatigue are not affected by this rule.

Again, I still don't understand the point of this rule and it is unintuitive. Is the point to get high fatigue units back in the fight faster? If so, then it is implemented backwards. Is it to make fatigue less of a factor over multi-day scenarios? It would be better to up the night time recovery rate (more than it already is). Is it to make fatigue count less during short scenarios? Make an optional rule to turn it off completely or increase the max fatigue or fatigue thresholds. Is it to delay the onset of fatigue effects? Again, increase max fatigue, change the thresholds or use this weird optional rule as it is now.

As I see it, the optional rule doesn't incentivize meaningfully long rests. Rather, it incentivizes short rests to keep a unit from even hitting medium fatigue before moving on to attack. Consider also that outside of melee, fatigue accumulation is a minor game play factor. In order to hit 300 fatigue, a unit needs to take on average 150 casualties! At that point, most regiments in these games are already combat ineffective due to manpower losses or wiped out before fatigue even becomes a factor. Likewise, 300 casualties for high fatigue and 450 for max fatigue. Even a melee loser needs to take an average of 50 casualties in order to go from 0 to 300 fatigue.

If anything, I would argue that 1 to 3 fatigue per firefight casualty is too low. I think faster fatigue accumulation due to firepower combined with higher fatigue recovery (a little higher during day and higher during night) would make it more meaningful as a game mechanic.

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland


Last edited by Logrus Pattern on Sun Mar 13, 2022 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2022 5:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:28 am
Posts: 71
Ashdoll, can you check your Gettysburg 4.01 pdt values again? I just looked and I see 5 day / 20 night for both Gettysburg and Overland. If correct, it means the optional rule increases recovery for lightly fatigued units by a factor of 4 and not by 2.

Gonna guess for medium fatigue units it got dropped from x3 to x2. No other integers it could be.

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2022 5:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:24 pm
Posts: 1145
Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
Well if something doesn't matter you can't say it's a shortcoming of the player if he ignores it, it's a shortcoming of the game if it is meaningless and by that gets ignored, that is just simple human behavior.

And fatigue wise, the melee is very different, in fire combat you may need 150 casualties to hit 300 but it melee it goes:
"Melee fatigue losses are 50% more than normal and, in the case of the melee loser, fatigue losses are double."
So loose one melee and your fatigue can be sky high.


The manual explanation is nice but doesn't stand its ground because in my opinion you can very well compare this to things like elastic & plastic bending or looking a sports to an athlete going blue. I mean that fatigue isn't a straight line, low combat all day long isn't the same as one horrific assault, bending a piece of metal over the point of elastic makes the bending permanent so much worse then just an elastic bending, and an athlete overdoing it and going blue is just breaking down in his performance and in the need of much more rest then just taking it a bit slower.
Simple put, if overdoing it you are in trouble as the unit is in high fatigue ground and needs a long rest as even with the higher recovery you will not be able to get out of the high terrain quickly.
I don't see a problem in getting rid of lower combat fatigue faster then high combat fatigue because both are different, high isn't just a X multiple of low.

_________________
Lieutenant General Christian Hecht
Commander I Corps, Army of the Potomac
Image
"Where to stop? I don't know. At Hell, I expect."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2022 11:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:14 pm
Posts: 75
Answers to the question about the test itself

Logrus Pattern wrote:
Ashdoll, are the unit fatigue numbers you listed the average of the unit fatigue and the fatigue recovery for the 12 units each turn? Or did they all lose fatigue at exactly the same rate? The latter would be an unfortunate implementation in my opinion.


No worries. The fatigue recovery for every unit each turn is random. I just list 12 units' in one turn and calculate the mean. I just did a small test and didn't want a big one.

Logrus Pattern wrote:
Ashdoll, can you check your Gettysburg 4.01 pdt values again? I just looked and I see 5 day / 20 night for both Gettysburg and Overland. If correct, it means the optional rule increases recovery for lightly fatigued units by a factor of 4 and not by 2.


The same title may have a different PDT. The PDT of the test is 'Day Recovery: 10%' indeed.

===========




The meaning of higher fatigue recovery rates(HFRR)

Logrus Pattern wrote:
Long story short: I don't see the point of this optional rule.


C. Hecht wrote:
Now, with higher fatigue recovery resting does matter because it enables you to get the low & medium fatigue units back to action in a foreseeable time so that they have real impact on the outcome of the scenario. Even the high fatigue units do that but likely only in multi-day scenarios. With that the gameplay of the players just changes because they regard resting again as a tool to be used and not ignored. It is just a very different gameplay and much more realistic then without this OR.


Logrus Pattern wrote:
As I see it, the optional rule doesn't incentivize meaningfully long rests. Rather, it incentivizes short rests to keep a unit from even hitting medium fatigue before moving on to attack.


The rate matters!

As C.Hecht pointed out and Logrus realized, the HFRR (please allow me to use the abbr.) will encourage players to displace and rest their units even in a single-day scenario.

A happened example:

Version 3.00, Day Recovery 5, ×5 HFRR in low fatigue and ×3 in high.

My cavalry encountered and slowed the enemy down from 8 am to 11 am until my infantry arrived, then retreat with 1 unit eliminated, 2 units high(max) fatigue, 3 units middle fatigue, and others low fatigue. I ordered them to guard my flank and supply, where it is in low pressure and they can do rest. At around 5 pm, 2 high fatigue remains high fatigue, but all others became low fatigue, even 0 fatigue. They then rejoined my offensive.

Let's do a math. Day Recovery 5. How long is the average turns for recovery from 599(highest of middle fatigue) to 299(highest of low fatigue)?

Without HFRR, 60 Turns. No way to really recover enough to get rid of fatigue punishment for most units in the whole day!
With old HFRR (×3 in middle fatigue), 20 Turns. Most can recover from middle fatigue to low fatigue in half-day (6 hours). If keeping resting, they will recover faster in low fatigue because of HFRR (×5 in low fatigue).
With new HFRR (No test. Just a hypothesis. ×1.5 in middle fatigue), 40 Turns. Harder, but it is still possible to get rid of fatigue through timely rest for some units.

The rate matters!

You see, high and heavy fatigue is still hard to recover in the day. The heavy fatigue units still have to wait for nightfall. But middle and low fatigue can recover in time in the day because of HFRR. Those players who rest their men in time can benefit. If without HFRR, the recovery in the day is almost meaningless. There are no real differences between players who rest their men in time and the others. The only best strategy is to forget resting your men and just to order them to fight to the death. It's boring.

I am not an expert but just a player. I can't declare which one is more realistic and historical. (I think the rate bonus can be argued but with HFRR on and encouraging resting in time is more realistic and historical. ) But with HFRR on, the game will be more dynamic and interesting. Also, I am a supporter of the old HFRR.

=============




Other discussion about fatigue rules

Logrus Pattern wrote:
In order to hit 300 fatigue, a unit needs to take on average 150 casualties!


C. Hecht wrote:
And fatigue wise, the melee is very different, in fire combat you may need 150 casualties to hit 300 but it melee it goes:
"Melee fatigue losses are 50% more than normal and, in the case of the melee loser, fatigue losses are double."
So loose one melee and your fatigue can be sky high.


Fatigue results are calculated as random values between the casualty value and 3 times the casualty value. Melee fatigue losses are 50% more than normal and, in the case of the melee loser, fatigue losses are double.

So the worst for fire combat is ×3 and for the loser in melee combat is ×6. 300 fatigue is at least 100 fire loss or 50 melee loss. High enough.


4.01 Updated: Fatigue results are calculated as random values between the casualty value and 6 times the casualty value. Melee fatigue losses are 50% more than normal and, in the case of the melee loser, fatigue losses are double.

So the worst for fire combat is ×6 and for the loser in melee combat is ×12. 300 fatigue is at least 50 fire loss or 25 melee loss. High enough.


=============

Logrus Pattern wrote:
Again, I still don't understand the point of this rule and it is unintuitive. Is the point to get high fatigue units back in the fight faster? If so, then it is implemented backwards. Is it to make fatigue less of a factor over multi-day scenarios? It would be better to up the night time recovery rate (more than it already is). Is it to make fatigue count less during short scenarios? Make an optional rule to turn it off completely or increase the max fatigue or fatigue thresholds. Is it to delay the onset of fatigue effects? Again, increase max fatigue, change the thresholds or use this weird optional rule as it is now.



C. Hecht wrote:
The manual explanation is nice but doesn't stand its ground because in my opinion you can very well compare this to things like elastic & plastic bending or looking a sports to an athlete going blue. I mean that fatigue isn't a straight line, low combat all day long isn't the same as one horrific assault, bending a piece of metal over the point of elastic makes the bending permanent so much worse then just an elastic bending, and an athlete overdoing it and going blue is just breaking down in his performance and in the need of much more rest then just taking it a bit slower.
Simple put, if overdoing it you are in trouble as the unit is in high fatigue ground and needs a long rest as even with the higher recovery you will not be able to get out of the high terrain quickly.
I don't see a problem in getting rid of lower combat fatigue faster then high combat fatigue because both are different, high isn't just a X multiple of low.


LOL. The analogy is interesting. Are you in the related field, like material, mechanical or reliability engineering, Hecht?

Image



I am also not satisfied with the fatigue mechanism and manual explanation. My view is that having fatigue rules is better than none, but the current fatigue rules are not good enough and vague to some extent.

Having fatigue rules is better than none. I think we all should agree that the combat efficiency of units will decline with the fighting on. The decline may result from 'fatigue'(usual meaning), organization damage, and morale decline (the latter two result from the loss, especially officer loss). The fatigue rules are a mechanic to simulate this.

The fatigue rules are vague to some extent. Or it is an abstract value for all impacts above involving combat efficiency decline. The 'fatigue' in rules is in fact different from the 'fatigue'(usual meaning). That's why the manual explains 'Fatigue is used to represent combat fatigue, not the physical state of being winded.'.

The current fatigue rules are not good enough. Given all the fatigue rules, I find it is still hard to understand the 'combat fatigue' in the designer's mind. Please consider all these rules.

> The fatigue is irrelevant to march. Without forced march rules (fast move with additional fatigue) brings one of the biggest missing tactics in JTS ACW.

> Exception, the night march increases fatigue. It is obvious here that fatigue is in fact an abstract value, including 'fatigue'(normal meaning). There is no direct loss.

> The fatigue generates based on the amount of loss. One man dies and then it increases all others' fatigue? It is obvious here that fatigue is in fact an abstract value for combat efficiency, not just 'fatigue'(normal meaning) but 'combat fatigue' (in manual). I think it is mainly because of the organization damage, especially the loss of officers.
Then a new problem appears. Is it proper for the fatigue generates based on the amount of loss? As Logrus pointed out.

Logrus Pattern wrote:
Most regiments in these games are already combat ineffective due to manpower losses or wiped out before fatigue even becomes a factor.


I think the 'fatigue' is more proper to based on the loss proportion of units instead of the loss amount. Forced march, assault and charge increase additional 'fatigue'. I disagree a 50 loss for a 200 men regiment and a 50 loss for a 600 regiment should take the same fatigue increase. It is obvious the former should take heavy 'combat fatigue' (combat efficiency decline) because their organization damage heavier and more loss proportion of officers.
Also, it is odd that 100 men against 100 men in melee will produce far less fatigue than 1000 men against 1000 men. I think they should increase similar fatigue. A man may not know and be concerned about whether he is in 100 vs 100 or 1000 vs 1000. It is no different for him and he just fights against the man before him.
And, cavalry combat will hardly increase fatigue because of little loss. Really?

I heard some think HFRR is not realistic because:
Quote:
This rule is one that pits those who prefer a more historical flavor to the games against those who prefer a more action-filled approach to them. To begin with the rule only really effects longer scenarios of a day or more. Shorter scenarios will not last long enough for the optional rule to have any real difference in the outcome. Over a longer scenario the addition of the Higher Fatigue Recovery Rates would allow battle weary units to recover faster and reenter the fighting sooner. For some Members this is borderline absurd given the very destructive effects of combat on a unit’s morale, numbers, and line officers. As an example, Heth’s Division at Gettysburg was heavily engaged on the first day of battle and would spend the next 48 hours resting until called upon to participate in Pickett’s Charge. Their numbers were so reduced, and their officer corps so decimated, that they were hardly an effective force even after two days of rest. So, how realistic is it to have a Higher Fatigue Recovery Rate where once decimated units might reenter the battle as an effective force – one might argue not very.


Well, I think the fatigue itself should be blamed and not just recovery. There is no proper mechanic for loss proportion. Those who suffer over 50% (or other proportion) should take additional debuff.

BTW, calculate the fatigue recovery in Gettysburg without HFRR. Units who rest 48h will recover 810 fatigue on average. So the example is still hardly repeated in current rules. Besides, it shows the HFRR also has an unignorable effect on night recovery.

> The fatigue has no direct effect on defenders in melee.

Why? Defenders should have some advantages. But is it proper? Does it satisfy the explanation, 'combat fatigue'? I forced high-fatigue large units to hold the line and to prevent the enemy advance. One indirect disadvantage is that the units easily failed morale checks. But my enemy has no direct advantage in assaulting the high fatigue units.

---

In short, I can't find a perfect consistent meaning for the 'fatigue' to explain all fatigue rules. And I think the current fatigue rules work not good on some points.

_________________
BG Ashdoll Ren
3rd Division
II Corps / Army of Northern Virginia


"Days and weeks of sheer boredom, interspersed with times of stark terror!"

Image


Last edited by Ashdoll Ren on Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2022 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:24 pm
Posts: 1145
Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
Fine post!

_________________
Lieutenant General Christian Hecht
Commander I Corps, Army of the Potomac
Image
"Where to stop? I don't know. At Hell, I expect."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 668
Further notes to Ashdoll Ren's excellent information.

You are, of course, correct in saying that "The fatigue rules are vague to some extent In the Manuals Folder" - I assume you are referring to the main manual named 'user' in the manuals Folder for each game.

However, there is also a file in the Manuals Folder named 'cwb' that may help shed a little more light on the issue in respect to the Optional Rule 'Higher Fatigue Recovery Rates' (afterwards referred to as HFRR). It says:
"This option results in having units recover from Fatigue faster than normal.
Units with Low Fatigue will have a fatigue recovery rate which is 5 times normal.
Units with Medium Fatigue will have a fatigue recovery rate which is 3 times normal.
Units with High Fatigue are not affected by this rule."

In almost every game I've played the HFRR is checked. There's never an argument about it, it is usually done as a matter of course. I believe that (disregarding the WDS v4.0 Fatigue Issue) having it checked will benefit a defender simply because defending units are more likely to spend a turn doing nothing and therefore have an opportunity to recover fatigue whereas attackers are more likely to have performed some action that prohibits recovery from fatigue.
As the 'user' manual states "Fatigue is used to represent combat fatigue, not the physical state of being winded" so it is unrelated to physical exertion. It would therefore be of better simulation value to have that Rule unchecked. Getting opponents to agree to that may not be easy as almost all of us are used to having it checked.

Ashdoll Ren is also correct in saying that "fatigue is irrelevant to march" and then goes on to mention a need for it. I generally agree that there should be something along these lines but feel that it would be problematic to introduce.
Should such a thing be introduced equally for all or on an army or unit basis? There are many instances where some armies could easily endure forced marches better than others (e.g many of Napoleon's campaigns, Jackson's 'foot cavalry').
Should it be related to unit quality?
Should it be related to the location of the battle? For example, one aid to Jackson in the Shenandoah was his excellent mapmaker who could not only provide Jackson with details of paths unknown to the enemy but their carrying capacity under different conditions.
Should terrain effect it?
Should it be an Optional Rule or built into the game system as a given?
So, in an ideal world we should probably have such a thing but I foresee many problems in introducing it. There are already other, more unrealistic issues, that should probably be addressed ahead of that one. Is it realistic to be able to set up 20 guns across the 125 yard width (of a hex) and begin blasting away? The obvious dangers are apparent to say nothing of the smoke that would obscure any sighting after one firing of such a line of artillery. Is it realistic for units (sometimes very large ones) to utilise the benefits of road movement and then cramming up to a thousand of them (in road column) in a 125 yard stretch of road before setting off again next turn in perfect order to continue to march in road column to wherever they're going? It'd be complete chaos [see here for a (non-JTS/WDS) discussion on road column length (http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=505514)].
I think we'll have to live with no fatigue for marching around the battlefield (although you can't recover from fatigue while doing so [WDS v4.0 excepted]).

Another Optional Rule can also come into play where Fatigue is concerned, Rout Limiting. This is another rule that I've found is checked as a matter of course. Never any arguments, it is just done. I believe that, from a simulation viewpoint, it is better to have it unchecked (although I can recall playing one game where this was the case - at the prompting of my Union opponent). I consider it more historically accurate to have it unchecked. I also believe that having it unchecked often benefits the CSA side over the USA side because the CSA generally has better rated leaders and higher quality units which can assist in rout recovery.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2022 4:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:28 am
Posts: 71
C. Hecht wrote:
Well if something doesn't matter you can't say it's a shortcoming of the player if he ignores it, it's a shortcoming of the game if it is meaningless and by that gets ignored, that is just simple human behavior.

I am not sure why you state that fatigue is meaningless because I did not write or imply that and you don't seem to think it is meaningless either. The fatigue penalties are quite stiff...if they occur. Since it is not meaningless, a player ignoring it indicates to me a lack of understanding of the game rules. If that is indeed what you observed. It's also just an unavoidable part of the game and suboptimal choices will need to be made in light of it.

C. Hecht wrote:
And fatigue wise, the melee is very different (...) So loose one melee and your fatigue can be sky high.

I noted this as well. Fatigue accumulates meaningfully only in the context of melee.

C. Hecht wrote:
(...) you can very well compare this to things like elastic & plastic bending (...). I mean that fatigue isn't a straight line, (...) bending a piece of metal over the point of elastic makes the bending permanent so much worse then just an elastic bending, (...)
I don't see a problem in getting rid of lower combat fatigue faster then high combat fatigue because both are different, high isn't just a X multiple of low.

I agree a nonlinear fatigue progression is an interesting game mechanic but, if you consider fatigue to be equivalent to strain, the analogy can be understood to be the exact opposite of what happens with the High Fatigue Recovery optional rule. Metals generally behave linearly in elastic bending and nonlinearly in plastic deformation, while simultaneously gaining strength under plastic deformation. Under the optional rule, low and medium fatigue behaves nonlinearly and it is harder to increase fatigue past those thresholds than it is when the unit has high fatigue; high fatigue units lose resistance to fatigue. Granting high fatigue units faster recovery than lower fatigue units would make the metals analogy more applicable.

Ashdoll Ren wrote:
The same title may have a different PDT. The PDT of the test is 'Day Recovery: 10%' indeed.

Roger. I think I know which PDT you used now. I just opened a couple scenarios and looked at the values without searching the PDTs themselves.

Ashdoll Ren wrote:
I am also not satisfied with the fatigue mechanism and manual explanation. My view is that having fatigue rules is better than none, but the current fatigue rules are not good enough and vague to some extent.

I don't like the optional rule but I don't mind the vanilla rules, even if they might be improved. The problem is, as we have seen in this thread, there are only three participants but at least four opinions of how fatigue should work. I personally don't worry about the game manual explanation of what fatigue is even if it is unsatisfying. I discard any discussion of 'realism' as to how the rules should work in favor of 'plausibility', since that is what people really mean when they talk about realistic game rules. In the end I am most interested in what game behavior the rules are supposed to promote and the consequences for play.

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2022 4:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:28 am
Posts: 71
Just when I thought I was finished, I discovered an undocumented change in the manual...

Ashdoll Ren wrote:
Fatigue results are calculated as random values between the casualty value and 3 times the casualty value. Melee fatigue losses are 50% more than normal and, in the case of the melee loser, fatigue losses are double.

So the worst for fire combat is ×3 and for the loser in melee combat is ×6. 300 fatigue is at least 100 fire loss or 50 melee loss. High enough.

Fire combat: fatigue accumulation is 1 to 3 fatigue per casualty for an average of 2 fatigue per casualty.
Melee combat: Recheck the manual, which states:
Quote:
Melee fatigue losses are 50% more than normal and, in the case of the melee loser, fatigue losses are double.

It is not immediately clear what 'normal' is but the only other mention of fatigue accumulation in the manual is due to fire combat, so let's assume that is what is meant.

Base melee fatigue will thus be 1.5 to 4.5 points per casualty for an average of 3 per casualty. For the loser this doubles to 6 points per average; the worst case for the melee loser is 9 fatigue points per casualty, not 6 (3 * 1.5 for melee * 2 for losing melee).

As for the manual change, I just noticed there is a change to the manual (version 4.01) that is not documented in the change log. Namely, the manual now states that that fatigue from firepower casualties is from 1 to 6 points per casualty, for an average of 3.5 points per casualty. This means that melee fatigue will accumulate at 1.5 to 9 points per casualty for an average of 5.25 points per casualty. For the melee loser this is 3 to 18 points per casualty with an average of 10.5.

Brutal.

I definitely did not notice this in play yet. I wonder if it was actually implemented in the game?

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:14 pm
Posts: 75
Logrus Pattern wrote:
Roger. I think I know which PDT you used now. I just opened a couple scenarios and looked at the values without searching the PDTs themselves.


"Struggle.pdt" I just picked one casually.


Logrus Pattern wrote:
I agree a nonlinear fatigue progression is an interesting game mechanic but, if you consider fatigue to be equivalent to strain, the analogy can be understood to be the exact opposite of what happens with the High Fatigue Recovery optional rule. Metals generally behave linearly in elastic bending and nonlinearly in plastic deformation, while simultaneously gaining strength under plastic deformation. Under the optional rule, low and medium fatigue behaves nonlinearly and it is harder to increase fatigue past those thresholds than it is when the unit has high fatigue; high fatigue units lose resistance to fatigue. Granting high fatigue units faster recovery than lower fatigue units would make the metals analogy more applicable.


Nope.

In low and medium fatigue, it is in the elastic region so it can recover faster when pressure disappears.

In high fatigue, it is in the plastic region so it recovers very slowly and remains high fatigue for a long time even if the pressure disappears.


Logrus Pattern wrote:
As I see it, the optional rule doesn't incentivize meaningfully long rests. Rather, it incentivizes short rests to keep a unit from even hitting medium fatigue before moving on to attack.


A complement to Logrus' former post.

I think the HFRR really encourages meaningfully long rests and, meanwhile, punished those insufficient offensives.

First, as my calculation before, you can see even if with HFRR on, units still need time to get enough recovery.

Second, even if with HFRR on, recovery is still not an easy job and needs a good arrangement. (That's an interesting job. I think it is a part of command art.) There are two cases.

> Case 1: The enemy keeps strong attacking.

Units suffering bullets and bayonets can't recover fatigue. So, if you need to recover, you have to move them to a safe place. (Personally, I will also try to make their positions more meaningful, not just safe and rest, like serving as reserve line, guarding flanks and supplies, standing in a spotting point, and so on.) They can't recover when moving and movement takes time.

What does the short rest mean? Move your men back, rest for 1 hour and then ask them to move and rejoin the fight? And repeat this again and again? The replacement has a price. You will find the units waste a lot of time in their way and can't really rest. The HFRR doesn't encourage such short rest. A long rest is far better.

Last but not least, such replacement needs reserves to replace their positions.

> Case 2: The enemy keeps weak attacking or goes away after brief attacking.

Only in this case, units could have a rest when they hold their line, and no need to move back. Please note that attackers have the initiative. Attackers give the chance to defenders to have a 'short' or 'long' rest. I don't think it is meaningless. As Hecht pointed out,

Hecht wrote:
I mean that fatigue isn't a straight line, low combat all day long isn't the same as one horrific assault,


I think it is a really good way to punish those badly coordinated and irresolute offensives. We called that '以逸待劳' (waiting at one's ease for the exhausted enemy).


Quote:
The problem is, as we have seen in this thread, there are only three participants but at least four opinions of how fatigue should work.


LOL :D

That's the wargamer. That's the wargamer, right? Hope I could design a wargame totally subjecting to my taste one day.

_________________
BG Ashdoll Ren
3rd Division
II Corps / Army of Northern Virginia


"Days and weeks of sheer boredom, interspersed with times of stark terror!"

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2022 10:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:14 pm
Posts: 75
Logrus Pattern wrote:
Just when I thought I was finished, I discovered an undocumented change in the manual...

Ashdoll Ren wrote:
Fatigue results are calculated as random values between the casualty value and 3 times the casualty value. Melee fatigue losses are 50% more than normal and, in the case of the melee loser, fatigue losses are double.

So the worst for fire combat is ×3 and for the loser in melee combat is ×6. 300 fatigue is at least 100 fire loss or 50 melee loss. High enough.


Fire combat: fatigue accumulation is 1 to 3 fatigue per casualty for an average of 2 fatigue per casualty.
Melee combat: Recheck the manual, which states:
Quote:
Melee fatigue losses are 50% more than normal and, in the case of the melee loser, fatigue losses are double.

It is not immediately clear what 'normal' is but the only other mention of fatigue accumulation in the manual is due to fire combat, so let's assume that is what is meant.

Base melee fatigue will thus be 1.5 to 4.5 points per casualty for an average of 3 per casualty. For the loser this doubles to 6 points per average; the worst case for the melee loser is 9 fatigue points per casualty, not 6 (3 * 1.5 for melee * 2 for losing melee).

As for the manual change, I just noticed there is a change to the manual (version 4.01) that is not documented in the change log. Namely, the manual now states that that fatigue from firepower casualties is from 1 to 6 points per casualty, for an average of 3.5 points per casualty. This means that melee fatigue will accumulate at 1.5 to 9 points per casualty for an average of 5.25 points per casualty. For the melee loser this is 3 to 18 points per casualty with an average of 10.5.

Brutal.

I definitely did not notice this in play yet. I wonder if it was actually implemented in the game?



Ooooops! I ignored it. It is a really important change and should show in the changelog, not just the manual. I still don't know how many changes don't show in the changelog... And plus reduced higher fatigue recovery rates, all troops in WDS become more vulnerable now. I think it hurts yanks more. Because rebs have higher morale and more small units, who usually get unfair advantages in current fatigue rules. Besides rebs are often the side who have to take time to rout enemy in a short time.

======

A little test. The loser in a melee just got a ×2, not ×2×1.5.

The basic ratio seems from 1 to 6 points per casualty indeed now. It should be right. It is easy to test. Tested. A unit suffering 50 fire loss got 277 fatigue. The ratio is 5.54.

The test of the melee fatigue ratio. From 16 times melee. The Ratio is Fatigue/Loss.

Winner
Fatigue Loss Ratio
66 12 5.50
48 24 2.00
184 29 6.34
132 34 3.88
193 39 4.95
79 25 3.16
136 30 4.53
100 42 2.38
120 21 5.71
40 26 1.54
165 23 7.17
144 22 6.55
75 37 2.03
214 35 6.11
315 50 6.30
340 44 7.73

AVG 4.74
MIN 1.54
MAX 7.73


Loser
Fatigue Loss Ratio
270 27 10.00
396 52 7.62
346 47 7.36
236 49 4.82
284 73 3.89
456 54 8.44
258 50 5.16
656 80 8.20
118 56 2.11
666 56 11.89
98 38 2.58
506 49 10.33
382 85 4.49
632 68 9.29
376 64 5.88
602 53 11.36

AVG 7.09
MIN 2.11
MAX 11.89

Temporary Conclusion:

1) Winner in melee got ×1.5 than normal fatigue. From ×1.5 to ×9 of loss. AVG is 5.25. The test results are on the lower side. I don't know why no one case is beyond ×8.

2) Loser in melee got ×2 than normal fatigue. From ×2 to ×12 of loss. AVG is 7. The test results are in good agreement with the theory.



=====



BTW, what Imageshack do you use? Or any other good ways to upload your own pictures? I have a screenshot of the test excel, but can't upload it directly in ACWGC.

_________________
BG Ashdoll Ren
3rd Division
II Corps / Army of Northern Virginia


"Days and weeks of sheer boredom, interspersed with times of stark terror!"

Image


Last edited by Ashdoll Ren on Mon Mar 14, 2022 11:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 144 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group